185 réponses à ce sujet

[Massa FX]

<Didn't read thread. Sorry.>

 

If a worm can take down a Reaper... all the might of a united Galaxy should get the job done. Why? Because in all history, no united force has ever gone up against the Reaper force at once.  

 

I think the answer is "no" only because that's Bioware's cannon. Not because it's a logical "no, you can't beat the Reapers conventionally" truth.

 

Not to mention, there's our Super Hero Shepard that's already bucked the system to successfully survive and achieve suicide missions, ending 1K year old wars, sleeping with a Turian, DEATH... Shepard IS the one solution that could conventionally take out Reapers. But, again... it was Bioware's decision to make this a hard-stop. If ME was real... and Shepard is as described in the games, she could certainly defeat Reaper forces to extinction.  

 

She's the galaxies Messiah. 

[Iakus]

When I said 'just go with it' I was specifically talking about the reaper's OP nature. You in turn responded replying that my stance was "just go with space magic." That wasn't at all my stance on it but by wording it the way you did you made it sound like that was what I was saying, thus making your refute seem more crushing. Is that not the very definition of strawman?

 

 

Because the concwepts are connected.  If you "go with it" as far as how invincible the Reapers are then space magic is the only answer.  The rules simply don't apply to them, and only DM Fiat can stop them.  More so, it's too late even for space magic to be the answer, since the space magic hasn't even been found yet!  

 

 

 

Conventionally victory was set up as a impossibility since the first game. They could had still done it, of course, but it would contradict everything up until that point. Something the game does enough of as-is. Coincidentally I'm not so sure its specifically the crucible people took such offense to in the ending, generally speaking. The crucible was in ME3 long before the actual ending came about. Its the execution, imo, that people disliked.

Not really.  This cycle had something no cycle before it had:  Advance warning.  If Bioware had done any planning at all, they could have used that to do something other than "pull a rodent out of an orifice" answer.  Sadly, after the waste of time that was ME2, a Deus ex Machina was the only answer left.  I was disappointed, but hey, maybe they could have given us a hell of an adrenaline ride with a "Frak Yeah!" ending that could have distracted me from the poor planning.  Sadly, I didn't get that either.

 

 

 

As I also said though this is a video game. Suspension of belief is required for it to be a game. Hence why I said we're expected to "just go with it" in this regard. Because for the story to remain absolutely logical and consistent for the entire trilogy we would have no game, only a failure-state. The reapers since day one have been set up to be unbeatable through conventional means. Which, in turn, is why I critize you singling out ME3 for having a 'problem' in the story that has been in the trilogy since day one.
Sentiment remains the same. The confusion of the language origins only adds to my initial point of it being unnecessary.

 

What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.  JRR Tolkien

 

Emphases mine.

 

 

 

Another case of "go with it." I don't believe we were ever meant to take it so literally. Everything has a beginning. It was in relation to us. In relation to us they essentially are eternal with no beginning or end. They're billions of years old, way off the scale of what most organics can comprehend. I doubt even the Asari could truly comprehend what it means to exist for billions of years. Relative to us they might as well not have a beginning. The only species alive that can truly relate to them is the immortal Leviathans that are actually OLDER.  

 Okay, why don't you just give me a list of what in-game comments I'm supposed to disregard, and which I should just "go with" so we're on the same page.

 

 

 

 
There are explanations one can come up with for that. They're all headcanon since the game never addresses it but the fact that headcanon can explain it away is a sign that its not a impossible problem to solve.
Yes, we should go with it. Its a game, we're not meant to over-analyze every detail. If they had just taken the citadel like they usually do then there would be no game to play. I can't imagine anyone would appreciate if the game was just a screen telling us we lost. This is specifically the thing I was saying we should 'go with'. This is first time you've used my "go with it" statement in the proper context - appreciated.
Though just to make it clear, just in case there is confusion - there is no doubt that reapers use the citadel to isolate and take over the galaxy in their harvesting plan. It isn't like its my speculation that its what they use it for - its explicitly stated in the lore. The game may be inconsistent with this but it doesn't make it any less lore. The prothean VI in the first game and Javik both make it very clear the important role the citadel plays in the harvest.  

 

It's a narrative as well.  If the narrative makes no sense, then what's the point of telling a story?  It's just a lot of stuff that's going on.  

 

Yes, if they took the Citadel, there'd be no game to play.  So why didn't they take the Citadel beyond "then there'd be no story to play"?  This is not over-analyzing a detail, this is a fundamental weakness to the story.  It makes everything that happens later in the narrative a contrivance.  As much as how the Lazarus Project brought Shepard back from the dead.  It makes everything that happens later feel railroaded.  I'm not playing the part in a story, I'm being told to shut up and listen to someone else's (badly told) story.  I'm watching someone else's abortive Secondary World go down in flames.

 

 

 

Fair enough. However the sentiment of my initial accusation still remains. You single out flaws in ME3 as if ME3 is the sole culprit of them rather than being an issue that has been in the trilogy from day one. Is it really fair to say "ME3 is bad because of X" if X is something that was in the trilogy since day 1? That doesn't mean X is suddenly good - it may still infact be an issue . It still seems unfair, imo, to single out one specific game in the trilogy and complain about it having a problem thats been consistent in the trilogy since the first day.
Indeed. Its a sad and unfortunate detail that so much of the hate garnered towards ME3 specifically comes from blind ignorance of the story.  

I really think you should look at the older ME2 threads before you fling that accusation at me.  You might change your tune.

 

 The hate is garnered because now it is too late to course-correct.  In ME2 there was still hope that Bioware had something up their sleeve.  That somehow that could fix, or at least patch up their mistakes.   AS I said, ME2 was a colossal waste of time as far as teh Reapers go.  But maybe ME3 could have done something to at elast make the final act enjoyable.  But ME3 made the old problems even worse.  And now we're stuck.  Shepard's story is over and it ended in pretty much the most awful way I can imagine.

 

 

 

So now you agree conventional victory is impossible? Well, glad we settled that dispute.
I will point out though at least now I have a better idea who you were talking about when you accused us for saying conventional = headlong charge.
Before:
"ANd again, why does conventionally always get boiled down to "headlong charge"? "
" It's only in ME3 that we get "THE REAPERS CAN'T BE BEATEN CONVENTIONALLY!!! OH NOEES!!!" "
"So we're supposed to just "go with it" that the Reapers suffer terminal stupidity in invading the galaxy, and the outright space magic that is the Crucible, but a more conventional victory is somehow unrealistic?"
"And I fail to see how it's a strawman to point out that you are willing to give the OP nature of the Reapers a pass, yet say "conventional victory" (whatever that means) is somehow unreasonable."
Now:
""Conventional" is pitting strength against strength.  Throwing our fleets against the Reapers.  That's obviously not going to work."
Hm... So now you're saying conventional victory obviously won't work (what we've been saying from the start) even after all that talk about "but why not, why not, boo crucible boo ending". So it wasn't really the conventional vs unconventional victory you were upset about. You were just angry at the way the crucible worked (space magic) and was using this as an excuse to complain about it some more. Fair enough, I don't like the way they handled it either, but does make this little back-and-forth redundant.
Actually I felt similar. I just gave it more validity then others, apparently. I didn't take it literally when it said it was without beginning or end - but I did take away the notion that its REALLY old and REALLY powerful. Given that the cycle has been going on eons and every cycle has been effectively wiped out by the reapers I was willing to concede that its boasting wasn't complete hubris, though. Not to mention the ominous visions from the prothean artifact at the start of the game.

 

It depends on your definition of "conventional" There seem to be a lot of people (I am not talking about you specifically) who seem to think anything short of the Crucible's space-magic is "conventional" no different than Hackett ordering ships to charge into Reaper fire and keep blasting away until they're destroyed. 

 

I happen to think that other paths could have been taken that did not rely on the Crucible that would still have qualified as "unconventional" if only the writers had 1) not wasted time with ME2's story and 2) showed a little more creativity

[Alamar2078]

In terms of unconventional ways to battle the Reapers it's too bad that we never found a way to attack them psychically (sp).  From what I can tell the fleet didn't really beat Sovereign in ME1 -- the psychic shock of being mentally connected to Saren when he was destroyed is what brought Sovereign's shields down & similar.  When he was left relatively defenseless it was an easy matter to take care of him.

 

Finding a way to duplicate the same or similar effect MIGHT have been an interesting thing to investigate.

[JasonShepard]

In terms of unconventional ways to battle the Reapers it's too bad that we never found a way to attack them psychically (sp).  From what I can tell the fleet didn't really beat Sovereign in ME1 -- the psychic shock of being mentally connected to Saren when he was destroyed is what brought Sovereign's shields down & similar.  When he was left relatively defenseless it was an easy matter to take care of him.

 

Finding a way to duplicate the same or similar effect MIGHT have been an interesting thing to investigate.

 

I went into ME3 expecting that, to be honest. Would have allowed Shepard to be the lynchpin on which everything turned too, if the Commander was the one performing the mental hack. As well as a rather unique final level - I'm thinking of boarding Harbinger in space, followed up by a virtual environment representing the collective Reaper consciousness...

 

...Unfortunately, an early Codex entry makes reference to it and says "Current Reapers do not seem to suffer from this design flaw", and then it never gets mentioned again. I'm like: "Writers?! You had a potential Reaper Achilles' heel that you could exploit here! You were clearly aware of it! What possible reason did you have for not using it?!"

 

The entire Crucible plot could have been re-written as a collection of Reaper-researchers looking into Indoctrination. It would have had the further advantage that everything would still link back to the Protheans buying us some time in ME1, and allowing us to figure out a way to win. Instead we got handed the way to win - which basically means that the only reason our cycle survived is because we got insanely lucky.

 

EDIT: Taking this a couple of steps further:

 

You could have still had the Catalyst confrontation, but on our terms, since we're the ones invading the Reaper consciousness.

 

You could even have a variation on the Destroy/Control choice - the Catalyst points out that defeating the Reapers would still take time, and that the Reapers would fight to the death if you choose to drop their shields (Destroy) leading to a high death toll... but someone else (TIM?!) points out that, since you're hacking every Reaper everywhere with Indoctrination, Control is an option, if you trust yourself with that much power and don't mind giving up physical form...

[themikefest]

In terms of unconventional ways to battle the Reapers it's too bad that we never found a way to attack them psychically (sp).  From what I can tell the fleet didn't really beat Sovereign in ME1 -- the psychic shock of being mentally connected to Saren when he was destroyed is what brought Sovereign's shields down & similar.  When he was left relatively defenseless it was an easy matter to take care of him.

 

Finding a way to duplicate the same or similar effect MIGHT have been an interesting thing to investigate.

Even after the shields went down, the Alliance ships did no damage to Sovereign. It was only the puny little frigate. SR1, that had the kill shot. The whole battle was setup for the SR1 to take that shot regardless of how many ships the Alliance had. The battle was done for the cool crap effect.

 

It also showed how powerful the reapers are, but showed how stupid organics are when facing an enemy. Never place your ships in harm's way when you don't have to. Namely, don't put them in front of the enemy when it can be attacked from behind without taking losses. Of course we get to hear the Hackett say, Negative. Take that monster down no matter the cost. As long as it wasn't his ship being destroyed, he didn't care.

[Alamar2078]

I wasn't aware of the codex entry indicating Reapers we no longer vulnerable psychically.  Oh well so much for that idea.  IMHO it did at least seem to flow organically from ME1 AND there's the whole thing of "if you can't beat them then outsmart them" thing going on.

 

As for Sovereign and the ME1 battle the whole thing may have been artistic license.

 

I still would have liked the option of exploring those type(s) of endings as opposed to having a Catalyst.  Heck you could do a LOT with more knowledge of the mass relays or the information stored at the collector base.

[Valmar]

Not really.  This cycle had something no cycle before it had:  Advance warning.  If Bioware had done any planning at all, they could have used that to do something other than "pull a rodent out of an orifice" answer.  Sadly, after the waste of time that was ME2, a Deus ex Machina was the only answer left.  I was disappointed, but hey, maybe they could have given us a hell of an adrenaline ride with a "Frak Yeah!" ending that could have distracted me from the poor planning.  Sadly, I didn't get that either.

 

 

The reapers are at least a billion years old. Billion years... even if we had a decade to plan and prepare you really think we had a shot at overpowering those kind of numbers? They'd win by sheer magnitude alone. Conventional victory was always hopeless.

 

 Okay, why don't you just give me a list of what in-game comments I'm supposed to disregard, and which I should just "go with" so we're on the same page.

 

 

I didn't say you had to disregard Sovereign's little speech. Merely that you shouldn't take it literally. Did anyone really, sincerely believe the reapers had no beginning and no end? That it wasn't speaking in a more informal, general sense? Nothing has "no beginning and no end" unless you're in the Doctor Who franchise. Lol.

 

 

It's a narrative as well.  If the narrative makes no sense, then what's the point of telling a story?  It's just a lot of stuff that's going on.  

 

Yes, if they took the Citadel, there'd be no game to play.  So why didn't they take the Citadel beyond "then there'd be no story to play"?  This is not over-analyzing a detail, this is a fundamental weakness to the story.  It makes everything that happens later in the narrative a contrivance. 

 

Its a game, you're over-thinking it. We're expected to just "go with it". Like I said originally. That hasn't magically changed because you keep bringing it up. The problem you're pointing out is also one that was in the first title and second. Why the reapers seemingly nerf themselves and hold back their full capabilities to allow us the chance to play the game is an issue (if you make it one, anyway) in the whole trilogy.

 

You could hold nearly any fictional story, even ones of the people you adore quoting, under the microscope and analyze every little thing and you'll probably come away with plenty of things to complain about. Suspension of belief is a trademark of fiction. We're suspending belief that the mass effect is even possible. That there are blue alien babes that wanna sex with everyone. That FTL travel possible. We suspend of lot of belief. Anyone who is so grounded in reality that they cannot suspend belief and "go with it" are never going to be able to enjoy the damn thing and this can be a fault of the reader as much as it can be of the story.

 

 

I really think you should look at the older ME2 threads before you fling that accusation at me.  You might change your tune.

 

 The hate is garnered because now it is too late to course-correct.  In ME2 there was still hope that Bioware had something up their sleeve.  That somehow that could fix, or at least patch up their mistakes.   AS I said, ME2 was a colossal waste of time as far as teh Reapers go.  But maybe ME3 could have done something to at elast make the final act enjoyable.  But ME3 made the old problems even worse.  And now we're stuck.  Shepard's story is over and it ended in pretty much the most awful way I can imagine.

 

My accusations would still be accurate in relation to ME3. Even if you've been complaining all along you still put out your ME3 complaints with the presentation that its a problem only with it.
 

Oh I'm sure it could be worse, lets not challenge Bioware on this. I shudder at the thought. That doesn't mean I'm happy with what we have but... could be worse. Frankly some of stuff I've seen fans write up as "alternative endings" have been worse then what Bioware spat out. I think we deserved better, I believe we deserved to get, well, what they promised us in all their hyping and interviews before the game was released. I'd love to play that game, that sounded fantastic. Instead they trolled us because much of what they promised turned out to be a lie. I'm quite bitter about that, honestly. We probably both are.

 

It depends on your definition of "conventional" There seem to be a lot of people (I am not talking about you specifically) who seem to think anything short of the Crucible's space-magic is "conventional" no different than Hackett ordering ships to charge into Reaper fire and keep blasting away until they're destroyed. 

 

I happen to think that other paths could have been taken that did not rely on the Crucible that would still have qualified as "unconventional" if only the writers had 1) not wasted time with ME2's story and 2) showed a little more creativity

 

I agree. I did point out earlier that a lot of this was reliant on your interpretation of what classifies as 'conventional'. The crucible, in its design, is a very unconventional weapon. It does not matter what function it serves. The concept itself it unconventional. I'm fine with the crucible, I was expecting something at least similar to the crucible in concept. Its the execution of it that I hate, actually. The space magic stuff.

 

Like I said earlier, I dont like how its a instant win-device that just destroys the reapers altogether in a single blast. I'm not fond with control being a choice but I'd be willing to accept it if it was executed in a way better than "grab these arcs of electricity and believe in the starchild, Shepard!"

 

Don't even get me started on Synthesis... Anyway, I agree that there were other unconventional ways they could had worked a victory in. I don't however, think they could had done it without a crucible device. At least, not without contradicting a lot of the lore. The idea that OUR cycle happens to built something from the ground-up that just happens to be the key to thwarting the reapers... doesn't really fit well with the lore, imo. Though I'd be willing to give it a pass, in retro-spec, since it'd probably be more satisfying.

 

 

In terms of unconventional ways to battle the Reapers it's too bad that we never found a way to attack them psychically (sp).  From what I can tell the fleet didn't really beat Sovereign in ME1 -- the psychic shock of being mentally connected to Saren when he was destroyed is what brought Sovereign's shields down & similar.  When he was left relatively defenseless it was an easy matter to take care of him.

 

Finding a way to duplicate the same or similar effect MIGHT have been an interesting thing to investigate.

 

I was expecting something like that. A device that somehow uses what we learned from that moment to somehow send a signal out through the crucible that disables the reaper shields and momentarily stuns them. Without their shields they're not nearly as indestructible. Better than having a reaper off-device, imo.

 

 

...Unfortunately, an early Codex entry makes reference to it and says "Current Reapers do not seem to suffer from this design flaw", and then it never gets mentioned again. I'm like: "Writers?! You had a potential Reaper Achilles' heel that you could exploit here! You were clearly aware of it! What possible reason did you have for not using it?!"

 

 

 

I wasn't aware of the codex entry indicating Reapers we no longer vulnerable psychically.  Oh well so much for that idea.

 

Unfortunate indeed. Though I will say this doesn't really mean the problem is fixed. Sovereign was directing Saren directly. They really needed an excuse as to why Harbinger was able to do this but NOT die when Shepard killed the thrall. There is a great excuse for this in the story: the collector general. Harbinger wasn't controlling the thralls directly (well, you know), he was working through a middleman - the general. That could provide a filter to keep a Sovereign event occurring. Notice that releases control of the general BEFORE the blast kills him in the end.

 

Sovereign wasn't controlling Saren from another thrall, he was doing it directly - hence why killing it backfired. The codex also says it "seems" they fixed this flaw, I assume in reference to  Harbinger assuming direct control of the collectors. I say it isn't because they fixed the problem but because they have protection in place in the form of a collector general acting as a filter. Though this is of course just speculation.

[Alamar2078]

@Valmar:  Sounds like a solid theory to me.  I wish that we hadn't effectively wasted the time spent in ME2 thus practically necessitating a catalyst level solution.

 

Devil's Advocate:  I loved playing through ME2 and did perhaps 15 or more runs through the game.  While I loved the game itself I can't argue that we mostly lost our opportunity to have a non-catalyst ending because of the "time wasted".

[von uber]

It's quite easy really. The collector base mission provides information relating to reaper technology and weaknesses, which the crucible then exploits in the manner of a giant disabling thing.

Job done.

[themikefest]

The only contribution the  collector base adds to ME3 is when ems is below 1750. Too bad the base couldn't have a larger role in ME3

[von uber]

The only contribution the collector base adds to ME3 is when ems is below 1750. Too bad the base couldn't have a larger role in ME3

Exactly my point - a very badly missed opportunity.

[Iakus]

The reapers are at least a billion years old. Billion years... even if we had a decade to plan and prepare you really think we had a shot at overpowering those kind of numbers? They'd win by sheer magnitude alone. Conventional victory was always hopeless.

 

They were not revealed to be a billion years old until ME3, where the Leviathan of Dis was revealed to be a Reaper and not simply a Farscape easter egg.

 

Besides which, the Reapers spend most of their immortal life asleep anyway.

 

 

 

I didn't say you had to disregard Sovereign's little speech. Merely that you shouldn't take it literally. Did anyone really, sincerely believe the reapers had no beginning and no end? That it wasn't speaking in a more informal, general sense? Nothing has "no beginning and no end" unless you're in the Doctor Who franchise. Lol.

 

No, but I also didn't take it take "You have the attention of those infinitely your better" literally either.

 

 

 

Its a game, you're over-thinking it. We're expected to just "go with it". Like I said originally. That hasn't magically changed because you keep bringing it up. The problem you're pointing out is also one that was in the first title and second. Why the reapers seemingly nerf themselves and hold back their full capabilities to allow us the chance to play the game is an issue (if you make it one, anyway) in the whole trilogy.
You could hold nearly any fictional story, even ones of the people you adore quoting, under the microscope and analyze every little thing and you'll probably come away with plenty of things to complain about. Suspension of belief is a trademark of fiction. We're suspending belief that the mass effect is even possible. That there are blue alien babes that wanna sex with everyone. That FTL travel possible. We suspend of lot of belief. Anyone who is so grounded in reality that they cannot suspend belief and "go with it" are never going to be able to enjoy the damn thing and this can be a fault of the reader as much as it can be of the story. 

 

If we are supposed to go with "The Reapers wage war incompetently" then why are we supposed to go with "We can't win conventionally"  If anything the former should open up the possibility of the latter.  Or at least, they could be beaten without space magic.

[Alamar2078]

It occurs to me that we didn't need space magic at all.  If we'd have known about a central controlling intelligence running the Reapers we could have gone after that AI.  If you push hard enough you could still get Destruction, Control, and Refusal without space magic.  Synthesis has always been a little wonky but even the worst parts of "green space magic" could have been avoided -- you just wind up replacing a harvesting cycle with a synthesis cycle.

 

Either way IMHO the writers didn't even want the players to be able to get an unconventional victory short of space magic

[Valmar]

Devil's Advocate:  I loved playing through ME2 and did perhaps 15 or more runs through the game.  While I loved the game itself I can't argue that we mostly lost our opportunity to have a non-catalyst ending because of the "time wasted".

 

I respectfully disagree. I would agree that the CRUCIBLE was a requirement and has been one since the start of the trilogy but not the catalyst. They could had easily done without the starbrat and still have the story work. Infact, imo, it would had worked even better as I believe MEHEM demonstrates.

 

 

It occurs to me that we didn't need space magic at all.  If we'd have known about a central controlling intelligence running the Reapers we could have gone after that AI.  If you push hard enough you could still get Destruction, Control, and Refusal without space magic.  Synthesis has always been a little wonky but even the worst parts of "green space magic" could have been avoided -- you just wind up replacing a harvesting cycle with a synthesis cycle.

 

Either way IMHO the writers didn't even want the players to be able to get an unconventional victory short of space magic

 

While I agree with the sentiment that the execution of the ending was flawed and space-magic wasn't needed I do wonder sometimes just why we generalize ALL the endings as space-magic.

 

To me, and this is just my opinion, the only ending that is space magic (to an insane degree) is synthesis. While destroy and control certainly could have and should have been handled better their execution isn't unfeasible.

[Alamar2078]

FYI:  Because I've been away from the game / series for a long time and I'm not necessarily referring to the plot elements [Cruicible & Catalyst] properly.  That's my poor use of terms on my part.

 

In another thread I actually contend that both Control and Destroy would fall out pretty naturally without "space magic" if just handled and explained better.  The problem with those endings is Synthesis [Green Space Magic] is space magic of high order while the Control & Destroy endings are represented as palette swaps of the green space magic ending.  Because of the poor execution I understand why people lump in Control & Destroy with Synthesis.

 

The bad thing is you don't 100% NEED green space magic for Synthesis to work.  Instead of the Reapers having a harvest cycle you replace it with a synthesis cycle.  So when they capture you they don't turn you into reaper goo but they force a Synthesis on you.

[CaIIisto]

The bad thing is you don't 100% NEED green space magic for Synthesis to work.  Instead of the Reapers having a harvest cycle you replace it with a synthesis cycle.  So when they capture you they don't turn you into reaper goo but they force a Synthesis on you.

 

It would certainly have made more sense if the galaxy had been DNA-raped by the Reapers rather than the galactic 'hero' Shepard.....

[Valmar]

 

The bad thing is you don't 100% NEED green space magic for Synthesis to work.  Instead of the Reapers having a harvest cycle you replace it with a synthesis cycle.  So when they capture you they don't turn you into reaper goo but they force a Synthesis on you.

 

 

So essentially the same thing, minus the nation. Lol.

 

IMO the current solution is just another version of the synthesis ending.

[Alamar2078]

You are correct that the current solution is a weak form of synthesis.  I could see where a more decentralized [perfected?] form of synthesis would be greatly preferred by the Reapers.  There is a certain cold logic to that type of solution.

[Valmar]

Honestly I'd argue that the reaper solution is a better method of synthesis. We're given no indication that the synthesis ending makes us immortal. The reaper solution made us immortal. Though I suppose it does have its own unique perks, such as individual freedom. Though, depending on your perspective, that could be positive or negative. The geth, before the writers butchered them, would have argued that individualism was a weakness. Reapers represent everything the geth aspire to.

[Alamar2078]

Before we could settle on which version of synthesis is "better" we would need to know what metrics we'd need to pursue to determine what is really "better".  If the ONLY goal is to keep AIs from rising up & killing everyone then I would contend that a distributed approach to synthesis is better.  With this type of architecture you may recover from certain failures while a failure in certain pieces of a centralized solution could be disasterous.

 

If on the other hand if goals like preservation or allowing new species to flourish are important then you need some way of getting rid of certain "apex species" during each of the cycles.

 

You could probably out-argue me on matters of lore but I seem to recall that the Reapers themselves experimented with synthesis and couldn't get it working.  If my recollections are correct that would seem to indicate that the Reapers [or at least the controlling AI] thinks there is a better solution than the current one.

[Valmar]

 

You could probably out-argue me on matters of lore but I seem to recall that the Reapers themselves experimented with synthesis and couldn't get it working.  If my recollections are correct that would seem to indicate that the Reapers [or at least the controlling AI] thinks there is a better solution than the current one.

 

 

They did, yes. The catalyst is the one who mentions it in passing. To paraphrase off memory "We've tried similar solutions in the pass but they did not work. It is not something you can force." It doesn't really make any sense, imo, (though what about synthesis ending does?) but it does imply they've tried other methods of synthesis. Now that they know this method is possible they view it as inevitable. 

 

I don't necessarily believe they felt there was a better solution than the reapers - they're just willing to adapt and change to new circumstances. At the time the reapers were the best solution, one that lasted for eons. Now, thanks to the crucible, they've discovered there is another solution. I still don't think they actually favor it though, at least relative to their own method of the reapers. I say this because even if you refuse to make a choice the reapers do not use the crucible for synthesis. Even though now they know how, they have the plans and they have the device. If they really felt it was the ultimate solution you'd think they would use it. I believe it was only the most preferred solution presented to them at the time.

 

Though, imo, control would be the best solution for the reapers - though not specifically for the catalyst. Shepard would more than likely come to same conclusion the catalyst did in his new immortal existence and eventually realize that the harvest was necessary and all other solutions eventually fail when viewed from the perspective of an immortal deity who holds no measurement of time.

[Alamar2078]

@Valmar:  Well argued based on what we see in-game.  I also agree that synthesis is a 'hot steaming mess" and the little bit we're given as an ending makes it difficult to determine which way the Reapers really prefer.

 

I tend to look at it as the Reapers know they don't have an optimal solution and think Synthesis is a way to go but perhaps they also believe that a system that has achieved its goals over the last billion [billons??] of years shouldn't be thrown out without due consideration.  Obviously this argument does NOT have leg to stand on but it works well as a personal belief.

 

While your position is solid based on what we see I'm not convinced we have enough information / a sufficiently well contrasted ending to know what is 'better".

[Valmar]

I think the only safe assumption we can really make, as far as the reaper's preferred ending goes, is anything other than destroy. Destroy, I believe we can all agree, has definitely got to be the one they least desire. Control and synthesis are debatable but at least we can agree the reapers are not fans of destroy.

 

What you bring up about not throwing out a thus-far successful solution is a good point. In fact I was going to mention something to that respect in my reply originally but couldn't think of a way to properly word it. I mean, it does make sense doesn't it? The reaper solution has been working fine for at least a billion (I'd argue well over that) years. It is only because the crucible that their plans failed. Now that its been completed they can plan accordingly and ensure it won't work against them in the future If I remember correctly there is actually a fan theory out there that speculates that is why Shepard has to break the tube in the destroy ending - supposedly the reapers installed that goo to block the destroy option from functioning - just in case it was ever finished.

 

The synthesis ending the crucible introduces is a new variable, a new possibility. They may have high hopes for it but they clearly haven't actually tried it in action. Would they trash a solution that has been working for billions of years to embrace a completely new solution that MIGHT work better? You say your belief doesn't have a leg to stand on but I disagree, I think it supports itself quite well.

[Alamar2078]

My thoughts support themselves as well as most other examples of head-canon (sp) but it still requires assuming items that are not shown to be fact in game.

 

Back to the OP's post and things mentioned in this thread .... From what I recall the Reapers continued the harvest cycle If the "refusal" ending is chosen.  In the next cycle the races complete construction of the Crucible again and this time they make a choice.

 

What I wonder is what is it that caused the Reapers to choose NOT to defend themselves from having a choice inflicted on them by the Crucible in the upcoming cycles??  Is the ending narrator untrustworthy?  Is what we see in the series "reality" or is it just part of the story that is being told in the far future??  What did Shep do by refusing that set the chain of events in motion that allowed the Reapers to be "defeated" [if defeat is even the correct word]??

[Valmar]

I'd give the credit more towards Liara then I would Shepard. Remember the reaper warnings she placed out all over the galaxy? I assume that is is why the next cycle survived the harvest in refusal.  What they actually did with that information is debatable. One would assume they, like you said, built the crucible and actually used it instead of pretending morals and integrity take precedent over galactic survival.